RE:RE:California contractTo expect a client to force its patients to take Reliq's service would be kinda dumb, right? And probably illegal, right? After all, it's the patient who is in control of his/her own health and must agree to take the service. The best that can be expected is for the client, after having done its own due diligence and after having selected Reliq as the best provider, to offer the service to patients, to show them how valuable it would be for them and then to help them to enroll.
Why on earth would a health care provider have multiple service providers when that sort of thing would clearly be very inefficient for them? Having multiple systems makes no sense.
And, if a client didn't intend to follow through, why would they sign a contract. As a health care provider, would they sign a major contract on a whim? I don't think so. This isn't the sort of thing one does lightly.
When estimating the number of patients that might take up the service, one could base the number on a percentage of patients who are eligible and likely interested. This obviously wouldn't be an exact science, but could still be done. Some clients might feel comfortable doing it, and some might not.
It seems to me the anger is overwhelming the logic for a lot of folks.
lscfa wrote: Contract, schmontract. Reliq commits to a price for offering the service. The client commits to nothing. A client could walk and go with another competitor and Reliq could do nothing about it.
Tdcpigc wrote: Cal contract represent 500 clinics, 5000 physicians and hundred of thousands patients.
At first sounds an excellent catalyst for stock and CEO promise an update soon after PR release and ... no news.
Rarely see a such badly managed stuff regarding investors communication, if no plan to provide update on such large contract do not say it !